Reviews by I lack sleep

I lack sleep

New Head-Fier
The "M" stands for Mid-fi and Marvelous.
Pros: Well-executed bright-tilted tuning that avoids sounding dry or sterile
Above-average staging for an IEM
Cons: Mild metallic timbre
May lack bass quantity
Dita Project M Review
By I_lack_sleep (Ix is my username in Discord)




Disclaimers / Unit Reviewed:

I was provided a loaner unit through one of the moderators in our local portable audio community, whom I thank for this opportunity. However, as I go to audio shows such as Canjam Singapore and visit audio stores abroad, I would have demoed the Project M and formed these opinions even without a tour.

Excuse my terrible photography.





Introduction / Prior Brand Experience:

Dita Audio (“Dita”) is a Singaporean audio brand which, before Project M, only produced special dynamic driver IEMs that were priced in the upper mid-fi (e.g., Dita Truth) to TOTL (e.g., Dita Dream, Dita Perpetua) price tiers. I am aware that several of their previous IEMs tend to have a bright V-shaped sound signature with a noticeable metallic timbre, with some exceptions.

To be blunt, I do not have high expectations going into this review. My last and only encounter with the brand was their former flagship, the Perpetua, which I found forgettable at best. It was certainly not my type of sound with its warm and even borderline dark signature-- I prefer a brighter tilt.

The Project M is their latest release. I harken back to the above description-- the Project M bucks two of their previous trends. On one hand, the Project M is a hybrid IEM with a single balanced armature driver complementing a full-ranged dynamic driver. On the other hand, it is aggressively priced in the midfi price tier at $325-- a price range that has very few entries from outside the Mainland Chinese space. The question that remains, of course, if it bucks my expectations for sound: spoiler, it does.

20240109_162737.jpg


Testing Conditions:
  • Portable Setup: Astell & Kern Kann Alpha via 3.5mm and 4.4mm jacks
  • Desktop Setup: Fiio K9 Pro via 6.5mm and 4.4mm jacks
  • Eartips Used: Stock eartips (Final Audio E, special edition), Tangzu Sancai, Dunu S&S
  • For my auditory biases, test tracks, and scoring rubrics, please view this Google Sheet.
Package and Accessories:

The Project M's aesthetics and packaging exude confidence and elegance.

From the get-go, the Project M does not hide anything-- not even its technical specifications and frequency response-- with all of these data printed on the outer box. Inside is a custom Systainer carrying case, a reasonably pliant cable with interchangeable 3.5mm and 4.4mm plugs (lovingly called the "Awesome Plug 2"), standard product documentation, a full set of glow-in-the dark Final Audio Type E Eartips specially made for the Project M, and the IEMs themselves. These all share a minimalist monochrome color scheme with an industrial style.

The IEMs themselves have nothing to hide (in a good way). They have a transparent shell of filled resin that proudly displays the drivers and circuitry. The build seems superb, with the IEMs not feeling hollow or flimsy to the touch. They even make a satisfying clack when hitting another hard surface.

20240109_162935.jpg
20240109_163419.jpg


Fit and Comfort:

The Project M is a small IEM with a 5mm nozzle. With both the included Final Audio Type E eartips and my standard set of eartips, I had no problems getting a deep fit into my oversized ears with tiny ear canals. Once in, they almost disappear into my ear and I can wear them for extended periods without any discomfort or pressure buildup.

20240109_163645.jpg


Sound Signature/Timbre:

I perceive the Project M as a bright neutral IEM, although based on how one perceives its bass and treble, I am not surprised if one considers it a bright tilted U-shape or mild-V shape. A graph is provided in the outer packaging for those interested.

As discussed below, the Project M is a good execution of a bright neutral tuning with some tasteful colorations that keep it from sounding too lean or sterile. However, it has a mild metalic timbre that may be of concern, though it may be remedied with tiprolling.

Bass:

The Project M's bass is clean and well-extended with a fair subbass-midbass ratio that hits deep and hits hard. Its sub-bass has sufficient rumble with a satisfying decay expected out of a dynamic driver; for instance, EDM tracks with long drops will resolve fully and with a level of tactility. It has a slight bump in the midbass and upper bass that ensures that instruments in these frequencies are well-textured and full-bodied, and contribute a level of warmth to the lower midrange without muddying it up.

However, at an approximate 5 dB maximum bass rise, this may not have the quantity of bass that will satisfy ardent bassheads seeking to satiate their low-end cravings.

Midrange:

The Project M's midrange is generally neutral with some tasteful colorations. Male and female vocals have a full-bodied, chesty character, while most instruments sound about right. The bump in the midbass and upperbass contributes some warmth to the lower midrange. Upper mids are forward and energetic without being shouty, owing to a slightly conservative pinna gain.

Treble:

The Project M's treble is the most polarizing aspect of its tuning. The mild metallic timbre mentioned above manifests in this region through several peaks in the response that may be perceived as excess energy in the trailing ends of some tones (e.g., exaggerated decay or sizzle in hi-hats and cymbals and pronounced plosives in vocals). Treble-sensitives may consider these peaks either distracting or even sibilant. This mars what would otherwise be a smooth and airy treble presentation.

However, the Project M has a sufficiently meaty low-end response to balance out the treble and prevent it from sounding thin or sterile. Moreover, I find that the excess energy may be mitigated by tiprolling, or rather, by not tiprolling, as I get the smoothest treble response with the included Final Audio E eartips.

Technicalities:

The Project M indexes high in most areas I consider "technicalities"-- staging, imaging, clarity, transient character, and dynamics. It has an above-average soundstage for an IEM, with a slightly out-of-head presentation with about even width, depth, and height. Instruments meshed well into the overall reproduction of the track but remained easy to pinpoint within the soundstage. Audibles were clearly heard down to the transient parts of tones, with transients being crisp in character. It was also able to reproduce volume swings within songs and across instruments.

However, I find that the driver has limits in terms of "speed" as it was barely able to keep up with some very busy / fast songs, where I perceive hints of several notes blending (but these are very niche that these may not be a problem for most).

Notable Results from Test Tracks (links to either Youtube or Spotify):
  • The Poet and the Pendulum (Nightwish’s Wembley Live version) – I use this as one of my primary test tracks as it tests almost every audio-related metric-- male vocals, female vocals, staging, and so on. The Project M was able to layer the various vocalists and instruments precisely within the soundstage, which reasonably corresponds to their positions in the official live video. It was in this song where I was able to detect the mild metallic timbre when Floor and Tuomas pronounced plosives when singing high notes, and in some of the louder cymbal hits.
  • Brink of Death (Chrono Cross OST) – I use this song to test staging and to some extent, dynamics. Throughout the song, there are percussive instruments (likely bongos) at the left side of the rear of the perceived soundstage which vary in volume. The Project M was able to place these instruments at that expected location, and reasonably handle the volume swings of these instruments.
  • Xronier (Camellia’s Xronial Xero album) – I use this song to test the perceived speed of a driver. This is a speedcore song with an absurdly high BPM count. Its percussion can be difficult to satisfingly reproduce with a transducer given the rapidfire speed-- the percussive hits have to be rendered distinctly without blending into each other or the rest of the song's instruments, while being reasonably tactile in the subbass. Not a lot of IEMs have been able to reproduce this song nicely for my tastes, with those few including the Symphonium Crimson. The Project M is not one of those transducers, as there is some blending-- the driver sounds like it is straining itself trying to keep up at times. Be advised, however, that this is a niche track that most will not listen to.




Scoring:

Tonal Grade: 3.5/5 – Tonal quirks / issues that may be ignored or mitigated with tiprolling.

Technicalities Grade: 4/5 – Precise imaging and layering, with a soundstage that starts to go out-of-head.

Enjoyment Skew: I decided to buy this IEM even while it was on tour, and it will be part of my shopping list in Canjam Singapore 2024. Of course I enjoyed it. Bonus points because as I will discuss below, the sound is even reminiscent of one of my favorite kilobuck IEMs except in an easier-to-wear package. +0.25/5

Final Score: ((3.5 + 4) / 2) + 0.25 = 3.75 + 0.25 = 4.00 = A-




Choice Comparisons
A. Moondrop Blessing 2 and 3, Moondrop Variations (same ballpark price range at $300-500)

Moondrop tends to tune to their Harman-derived tuning curve, which is the case for these three. Because of this, I will lump these three together. A common characteristic of the three is a subbass-focused bass presentation with a midbass tuck, generally flat midrange with an upper midrange emphasis, and a smooth treble response. I consider the Blessing 2 the "neutral" point, with the Blessing 3 and Variations being brighter and bassier variants, respectively.

I'll be honest: I didn't like the three. I respect them for being benchmarks, but all of them suffer from the same problems: relatively weightless bass due to the midbass tuck (even in the Variations) and a lack of perceived weight given the conservative low-end. I also find them hard to fit with their notoriously chonky shells. They're an easy listen, but it's not what I'm looking for these days-- I prefer a bit of excitement and color.

The Project M solves my issues with the Moondrop trio, albeit at the expense of mild metallic timbre and the spicier treble presentation that it brings. However, it is a trade-off I am willing to accept for the package it delivers, and as I said, tiprolling can mitigate the Project M's treble. That the Project M is far more comfortable is a point in its favor.

Project M vs. Blessing 2 and 3 / Variations
M wins: Fit and Comfort, Bass, Midrange, Techs
BV wins: Treble (for easy listening)
Toss-up: Treble (for other cases)


B. Sennheiser IE 200 and IE 600 (lower price range for IE200 at <$200, higher price range for IE600 at >$700)

The Sennheiser twins and the Project M have signatures which may be interpreted as U-shaped or mild V-shaped. Both have a crisp and energetic presentation with a clean but powerful bass, a generally flat midrange, and potentially spicy treble. They are also quite resolving given their driver configuration, albeit with some cutbacks in the case of the IE200.

It is how they approach this presentation where they differ, but in a way that I may consider them complementary pairs. The Sennheiser twins have a pronounced subbass focus, and a relaxed lower treble leading to several spicy treble peaks. The Project M has what I would consider to be a more prominent midbass and upper bass, and a relatively smoother treble albeit with the aforementioned peaks that may be interpreted as metallic timbre. In practice, I consider the Sennheisers to have a warmer tilt while the Project M has a brighter tilt.

Project M vs. Sennheiser IE200/IE600
M wins: Treble (for my tastes), Fit and Comfort (unless you prefer the negative profile of the Sennheisers)
S wins: Fit and Comfort (if you prefer the negative profile of the Sennheisers)
Toss-up: Bass, Midrange, Technicalities


C. Elysian Acoustic Labs Gaea (higher price range at >$1000)

Surprise! While listening to the Project M, I immediately thought of the Elysian Gaea among my daily drivers. Their sound signatures may be perceived as bright-tilted U-shapes with prominent upper midrange and treble presentations, with the Gaea being even more tilted in the higher frequencies. They have an energetic and detail-oriented sound albeit with tonal quirks that may or may not appeal to some, such as the metallic timbre on the part of the Project M or the (very) aggressive upper midrange to treble (shelf) on the part of the Gaea.

In most cases, I prefer the Gaea as though it has an elevated and aggressive upper midrange and treble, I still find it a smoother listen devoid of metallic timbre-- there's just a lot of treble. As I expect from its higher price tag, it resolves details with just a bit more clarity, something I particularly appreciate in those few songs where the Project M barely kept up (hi Xronier). However, I prefer the Project M in those cases where I also want to focus on the bass (despite it also being bright-tilted), as the treble is quite conservative in comparison, letting me focus on that region a bit more. Otherwise put, the Project M's no slouch!

Project M v. Gaea
Toss-up: Fit and Comfort, Bass
G wins: Midrange, Treble, Techs
(P.S. I enjoy both of them! I can even confidently say that the Project M is a baby Gaea!)





Conclusion

The Project M is the complete package if one wants a bright-tilted set in the midfi range. In between the presentation and the well-executed sound profile, it's a compelling detail-oriented listen that has its niche within the market. Just watch your tolerance for the mild metallic timbre, or have your tip boxes ready.
Last edited:
Back
Top